Since Forbes hired me in 1995 to write a legal column, I’ve taken advantage of the great freedom the magazine grants its staff, to pursue stories about everything from books to billionaires. I’ve chased South Africa’s first black billionaire through a Cape Town shopping mall while admirers flocked around him, climbed inside the hidden chamber in the home of an antiquarian arms and armor dealer atop San Francisco’s Telegraph Hill, and sipped Chateau Latour with one of Picasso’s grandsons in the Venice art museum of French tycoon François Pinault. I’ve edited the magazine’s Lifestyle section and opinion pieces by the likes of John Bogle and Gordon Bethune. As deputy leadership editor, these days I mostly write about careers and corporate social responsibility. I got my job at Forbes through a brilliant libertarian economist, Susan Lee, whom I used to put on television at MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. Before that I covered law and lawyers for journalistic stickler, harsh taskmaster and the best teacher a young reporter could have had, Steven Brill.

Why Romney Lost: Conservative Commentary Roundup

From the conservative point of view, why did Mitt Romney lose a presidential election that Steve Forbes and many others were predicting would be, in Steve’s words, a “decisive victory” for the Republican challenger?

Here at Forbes, opinion editor John Tamnywrites that it was Romney’s economic advisers who cost him the election. Columbia business school dean Glenn Hubbard is too much of a skeptic on China trade, and he was misguided when he advocated policies that would increase demand for housing at a time when markets were calling for less investment in the sector. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw supported a cheaper dollar, a policy that is damaging to Americans’ efforts to save and invest. American Enterprise Institute economist Kevin Hassett supported a misguided work-sharing idea where companies would reduce hours for some employees and create more jobs for others, missing the point that job creation comes from expanded investment, rather than slicing a finite pie. On taxes, Romney failed to explain his plan in the debates, and retreated from the idea that the 1% boost the economy, rather than drag it down. In an election that should have been a landslide, writes Tamny, Romney “had the wrong people whispering in his ear about economic policy.”

At The Wall Street Journal, today’s lead editorial calls Obama’s victory “the definition of winning ugly” because instead of laying out an inspiring agenda for his second term, he portrayed Romney “as a plutocrat and intolerant threat” to various voting blocs that ultimately supported Obama, including single women, young people, cultural liberals, union workers and minority voters. The Journal also notes that Obama got a boost from Hurricane Sandy, as it gave Obama the chance to rise above partisanship and appear to be a strong leader. Obama also owes thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts, who “provided a salve of legitimacy” to Obamacare, and to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, whose monetary policies lifted asset prices, boosting the stock market and consumer confidence. The Journal says Romney failed effectively to defend his Bain Capital record, and faltered in his efforts to distinguish his economic plan from George W. Bush’s. When it came to the minority vote, Romney also failed, sticking to immigration policies that were unpopular with Hispanics.

At The National Review, Kevin Williamson says Romney’s downfall was his failure to sway Ohio voters, but Williamson does not so much blame Romney as attribute Obama’s victory to the president being a “skillful demagogue,” who capitalized on Ohioans’ support of the auto bailout, their opposition to low capital gains taxes for the wealthy and their reluctance to see a repeal of Obamacare.

Also at the Review, Michael Tanner writes that it was not the Romney campaign that lost the election, but the Republican Party, which has failed to expand its demographic reach beyond white men. Republicans also failed to persuade young voters and Republicans’ hard-line stance on immigration failed miserably with Hispanics, who helped Obama carry Nevada and Colorado. On social issues, Tanner says the Republicans have struck the wrong tone, sounding “intolerant and self-righteous” as they have opposed abortion rights and gay marriage. “The Republican brand was too easily associated with the words of Todd Akin,” he writes. The Republicans also made a mistake when they indulged the “birther” proponents, and ultimately failed to offer an agenda for the future that was positive and hopeful enough to persuade swing voters.

Carrie Lukas, managing director of the Independent Women’s Forum, writes on the Review’s blog that Republicans needed to counter the Democrats’ “war on women” argument. Romney and his camp should have clarified that they were not trying to restrict women’s access to contraception, and they never made a winning argument about why Republican economic policies would be more likely to create jobs for women and reduce the deficit.

At The Washington Examiner, Byron York has a revealing piece where he describes a meeting late last night between top Romney aides, including Beth Myers and Eric Fehrnstrom, who gathered at the Westin Hotel in Boston to discuss the reasons for Romney’s defeat. Hurricane Sandy had arrested Romney’s momentum at a critical point in the campaign. Another factor: the Romney camp didn’t effectively counter the barrage of Obama ads over the spring and summer that attacked Romney’s personal wealth and his record at Bain Capital. Romney’s aides also acknowledged the candidate’s failure to appeal to Latino voters, and his lag in moving to the center after the polarizing primary season.

Erick Erickson, editor of RedState, writes that Romney lost because Obama simply ran a superior campaign. Says Erickson, “there was just a really good ground game from Barack Obama and a lot of smoke and mirrors from Team Romney and outside charlatans,” including those who worked for Republican Super PACs, who never communicated an effective message. Erickson says, “Neither side put forth a serious agenda that stood for much of anything.” While Obama’s message was an attack on Romney, Romney “stood for nothing and everything at the same time.” Romney’s position-shifting blurred his message and made it tough for voters to know what he stood for. Also he didn’t even try to win the support of Hispanic voters. Erickson adds that the weak slate of GOP senate nominees, including Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, hurt Romney’s prospects.

John Podhoretz at The New York Postagrees with Erickson that Obama’s campaign was far superior to Romney’s. Not only was the president’s message more effective, but he ran a strong state-by-state get-out-the vote effort that delivered his victory. Obama also effectively persuaded voters that he inherited an America that was in dire straits when he took office, and worked hard to make things better, rallying the Democratic base and spurring those who had stayed home during the 2010 midterm elections to come out and vote. That included young people, African-Americans, Hispanics and, as Podhoretz says, “the killer app of 2012,” single women. Concludes Podhoretz, “I fear very much what [Obama] is going to do to the country, but you have to admire this political master and his amazing handicraft.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I too feel exactly as Doug feels…a fish out of water is a great way to put it. No question there is not one main reason for the loss. From a personal standpoint, I actually thought of Mitt as a candidate who could make a difference. I am a registered Republican who voted for the President. My fear of having two branches of our government controlled by a Republican party that I can no longer identify with was just more than I wanted to chance. The party and many of the candidates who couldn’t stop talking about rape, reproductive rights, morality, a woman’s rights, and who would have a President nominating a Supreme Court justice! I think there is just too much at stake to allow this brand of Republican to have an even greater say in how to run our country. I personally wanted to vote for Mitt, but the thought of his party having their way with things was more than I wanted to even think about. I don’t think Mitt ran a bad campaign. I think the lofty economic advice he may have gotten didn’t mean anything to the majority of us. This country has to change what has been the status quo…and I give the President a whole bunch of credit for trying to change things. Can he do things better…of course. I believe the biggest problem with our economy is the fault of this Congress…where there is a lack of leadership from either party. They need to take a pragmatic look at things and decide what is going to help the country, not their party.

Thank you for this thoughtful comment from a Republican point of view. As I said in another comment, I find it striking that none of the conservative commentators I read this morning made your point about the how far right the party has tilted, on both social and economic issues (the Paul Ryan agenda to privatize social security and Medicare).

Kudos to you for the courage to do what you did. As a fiscal conservative, I would just as soon the government leaves things alone. The problem is, that as Republicans claim to want smaller government, they also want to expand governmental oversight into private decisions. That is a fundamental quandary that is difficult for many to overcome.

What is troubling is that Obama never had the spotlight of truth focused on him to explain his budget proposals. The onus was perpetually on Romney to explain, to explain, to explain; Obama never disclosed and was unfortunately re-elected.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Pfister. Like you, I am a registered Republican, but I could not vote for Mr. Romney due to his stance on women’s rights or rather the loss of women’s rights. I also felt that he never gave solid answeres on his plans for the economy. President Obama may not be perfect, but for me, he was the only choice I could make with a clear conscience. In addition, Congress needs to start working for the people who voted for them, not the corporations that provide vacations and lunch.

Here is the problem with the masses… In the year of Uzziah’s death, the Lord commissioned the prophet [Isaiah] to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. “Tell them what a worthless lot they are.” He said, “Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don’t mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you,” He added, “that it won’t do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.”

Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job — in fact, he had asked for it — but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so — if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start — was there any sense in starting it? “Ah,” the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.”

Mr. Pfister I admire your honesty This country it seems will always be divided by the amount of money you make It is a sad time to be an American when so much is decided on that fact alone I sit here and read all of these comments made about our President He did not create these problems when he was voted into office in 2008 I believe he was voted in because he made a case for us to believe in Him and his ideas to save us from all the problems that Junior Bush brought to our Great Nation It always seems to be a blame game The day that the House and Senate can agree on things for the good of our Great Nation then we will see our country move forward. Until they quit acting like spoiled little kids that want there way and there way only we will continue to be in a Stalemate Nobody wins

Exactly. It’s difficult to make an informed decision about a party when they change their position so often. To me, it made him seem dishonest and unsure those are not qualities I look for in a president.